Private Members' Business. - Supply for Department of Foreign Affairs: Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Tuesday, 18 Apr 1972

Private Members' Business. - Supply for Department of Foreign Affairs: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That, in connection with the supply granted for the years ended 31st March, 1971, and 31st March, 1972, the Dáil takes note of the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

—(Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Mr. Ryan

Before we adjourned the debate I was having words with the Minister about a question which I raised in the House and the reply to which I attributed to him. I attributed it to him wrongly because I now see that the reply was given by the Taoiseach. It it a question referred to in the Dáil Official Report for 29th February last at column 509. I asked the Taoiseach:

if, having regard to the large number of existing and future draft rules, regulations and directives of the European Communities he will agree to the establishment of an all-party permanent committee of the Dáil to study the existing body of the Communities' legislation and future draft amendments and addenda, so that the Dáil may make comments and proposals thereon as the need may arise and thereby continue its prime function as a legislative body; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Taoiseach's reply was:

The question of procedures to facilitate the examination by the Oireachtas of Community legislation and, in particular, proposals for new legislation, is receiving attention. It is my intention at the appropriate time to seek the views of the other political parties on this question.

I asked a further question of the Taoiseach:

Would the Taoiseach agree that this is a very urgent matter, that there is a vast number of rules and regulations and a vast amount of legislation, actual or intended, building up in Brussels, and that it is highly desirable that this House, as one of the legislative arms of the State—the Seanad is the other— should be aware in advance of all that is even contemplated? This is essential if our function as legislators is to continue in the future.

The Taoiseach replied:

The Deputy can be sure that I have sympathy with that point of view.

Now we have the strange revelation today that the Taoiseach, having expressed sympathy with that point of view, having said it in the Dáil on the 29th February, "the question of setting up a committee of the House is receiving attention", the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not quite in sympathy with the proposal.

Dr. Hillery

I said I did not answer the question. The Deputy said I answered it. I said I did not but I did not reject the principle. The Deputy is being inaccurate. His charity only extends to his memory of long distance statements.

Mr. Ryan

My charity is all embracing in both time and location. I would not wish to misconstrue what the Minister said or intended. I certainly interpreted not only from what he said but from the gestures and intonations that accompanied it, that he was not in sympathy with the Fine Gael proposal that there should be a foreign affairs committee of this House.

Dr. Hillery

I disagreed with what the Deputy said.

Mr. Ryan

The difficulty is resolved now. We know the Taoiseach is in agreement with a foreign affairs committee, that he is giving the matter his attention, but the Minister is not apparently aware that the matter is receiving attention or he surely would not have spoken the way he did earlier. This is not a revolutionary suggestion. It is now the accepted practice in all modern democracies. It is a necessity because of the complexity of international relations, because of the all-embracing nature of international obligations. We should not delay any longer in this much needed reform.

I do not think people have sufficiently copped on to the prospect that if the referendum is carried on the 10th of May this year we will have to nominate ten Members of the Oireachtas to represent this country in the European Parliament and that these Members will be absent from this country for about six months of the year at the European Parliament and the various Committees of the Parliament doing the nation's work. These people will be as important—in some respects more important—as some of the Ministers who may be attending the ordinary Ministerial conferences, who will have available to them the most expert advice from our own Civil Service and from our own Diplomatic Corps. Our Parliamentarians in the European Parliament and the various Committees will have to be very well aware of what is going on and what is anticipated in order that they can bring proper influence to bear in Europe and in turn acquaint this House and the people of this country with what is happening in Europe. If we are going in we will only be in a minority in the European Parliament, but it is important that that minority be as effective as it can be. This will not be so unless we treat this as a matter of urgency. I hope before the month of May is out that we will have established as a permanent part of our parliamentary institutions an active, regularly meeting and properly informed foreign affairs committee.

The Minister, as I mentioned, in his brief spoke about foreign affairs being a network of relations, exchanges and contacts of every kind. We cannot adequately cope with all the intricacies and depth of international relations, exchanges and contacts without having an active foreign affairs committee. It is quite probable that as the years go no Members of this House will have to become more specialised in a limited number of topics to give adequate service to our people, but we will not be able to do that as long as we carry on everything in the slipshod way we have been doing in the past. As I pointed out at the outset, it is two years since this House, to any sensible degree, discussed foreign affairs. On a number of occasions when we raised matters at Question Time we were told by the Minister and the Taoiseach that it was not a suitable way in which to discuss the problem, that it would need to be thoroughly debated. This is a view that we shared over the last two years of the most challenging and changing time in our own affairs and international relations, a time during which we have been stopped because of the pressure of other business from having an adequate discussion or examination of where we were going in international affairs.

The Minister by the depth of his contribution has recognised the need for this study in depth of our particular position in the modern world. I think he probably shares with me a realisation that this is not good enough, that we need to be more extensive in our coverage of foreign relations in future. Of course, world relations will certainly be foreign and will involve very many countries, not only those in the EEC but also the reaction of other countries, the eastern bloc, the American, Asian and Australian continents and the rest of the world, the Third World with the new entity, the political, economic and social forces that will grow in the world with the expansion of the European Economic Community.

Irish nationalism will be as relevant as ever within this new environment. Indeed, I believe it will become more important to be truly nationalist in the full and generous meaning of that term. Nationalism has come under attack because of excesses which were committed in its name, but it is as invalid to attack nationalism because of the sins committed by people who strongly adhere to their patriotic views as it is to attack religion because of atrocities that have been committed by people in the name of their own religious convictions. We mean by nationalism true patriotism, true love of country, which does not necessarily involve making attacks on others or taking unfair advantages of others. It is by being mindful of and exercising positive Irish nationalism within the European Economic Community or any other political organisation that we may join that we can best promote our own self interest legitimately.

The Minister spoke about the need always to have regard to one's own national interest when conducting international affairs, suggesting almost that we should not act unless to our own advantage. I do not particularly warm to this because it suggests something of the cynicism which is expressed in the idea that we should not bother spitting into an international spitoon until several other people have done the same before us. This is the kind of thing which has led Ireland into what I think is a very disappointing situation of always waiting until other people move to do the right thing before we think of doing it ourselves. If we have strong faith in what is right we should not hesitate to express our own viewpoint. We have slipped in the leadership in international affairs in recent times. The Minister suggests that this is due to a change in the structure of the United Nations caused by nations which were subjected to colonial domination achieving their own independence and now being member states in their own right in the United Nations. It is argued that they do not need to look to or require the leadership of Ireland in the particular battles they want to conduct because they are able to do it themselves.

There is some validity in that argument but I do not think it is the full picture. We have become too anxious not to displease anybody and we will end up in a situation of all too often being, if not at the end of the queue, so far down it that by the time we do the right thing it is not of any significance when we do it.

Our tardiness in recognising Bangladesh is a case in point. There 75 million people were subjected to the most appalling tyranny since the tyranny of Nazism. Throughout that holocaust this country remained silent and even when, with the assistance of India, the people of Bangladesh achieved freedom, when at last there was some hope provided for the ten million refugees who had to leave their country and go to India, we held back from recognising the Republic of Bangladesh. For a long time before we gave our recognition Bangladesh had fulfilled every known requirement for such recognition. It had effective control over its own territory, it had its own elected government and had its democratically elected parliament before the country was subjected to tyranny by West Pakistan. It was totally freed from the domination of West Pakistan because the government of that country were no longer in a position to exert any jurisdiction over the east.

In our day of struggling for freedom we were only too glad to get recognition from abroad. We sent people like Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly and others across the world looking for recognition and were glad to get it anywhere. Yet, after 50 years of our own sovereignty we held back from recognising Bangladesh because we did not want to offend Britain, we did not want to offend any nations in the Commonwealth or to hurt a government which had disgraced themselves before the world in the acts of tyranny and cruelty they had inflicted on their own people.

This is the kind of timidity which justifies the criticism that our Government have lost that sense of integrity that was once the identifying mark of our conduct in international affairs. I hope the Government will move away from that "softly, softly" all too-cautious do nothing approach. This approach, apart from being unworthy in itself, has meant that we were not in a position to command support which otherwise would have been made available to us in our own troubles in the last few years.

In this time of great change we must look to the future. The Minister's address was a statement of principles of foreign affairs at any time. It was a useful exercise but it was a pity he did not tell us more about the particular problems of the future and how we might approach them. I have emphasised the need for true and worthwhile Irish nationalism in relation to our international activities. We will also need to have a more direct and effective commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms than we have exhibited in recent times. We must shake off the diplomatic hesitancy and moral cowardice exhibited by us in the last decade.

Without any equivocation we must renew our declaration of and commitment to military neutrality. This stand, which at one time I thought to be unchallenged within our own domain, has been qualified by statements of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach, and by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, in the last decade. Having for some years embarrassed our European friends as much as they startled home opinion by some of their declarations about readiness to accept military obligations, in recent times they have gone to some pains to assert that membership of the EEC does not involve any military or arms responsibility. We must not only state what is a fact; we must also not be afraid to state that so long as we have any control over our own affairs we will not be involved in a war. We must state that we repudiate the use of force or the threat of force to achieve political objectives.

Our aim has been, and must always be, to work unceasingly for a more just and better balanced European and world order. This cannot be achieved by the use of force or by the threat of force, either by the Irish nation or by any other nation or bloc. We want to see an end to hostility not only between nations but between blocs of nations. Everything we can do to make the EEC and Europe a neutral zone, the more we will contribute positively to the happiness of mankind.

What is Ireland's position within the EEC? It does not, as has been acknowledged now, involve any military or arms obligations. However, we must make of our neutrality something more positive than that. We must declare that we value our neutrality, and that this will be of benefit to the European Community. We believe there is virtue in keeping the peace and declare to the world that peaceful methods are the best way to achieve worthwhile and lasting objectives.

We must also be concerned to unite Europe not only in the west but throughout the entire continent. We must work to achieve membership of the EEC for Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Finland and every other European democracy. These countries are quoted by people as evidence of countries which are unable to join the EEC because of their commitment to neutrality. This is an oversimplification of the situation. Austria and Finland are bound by an international obligation with the USSR not to involve themselves in international association unacceptable to the USSR. Both Austria and Finland want to join the EEC.

Sweden is tinkering with the problem. Swedish representatives in the Council of Europe usually are irritated when people speak of the four applicants to the EEC because Sweden regards herself as an applicant. Perhaps at the moment she is unable to accept the terms available but she is interested in joining the EEC. If she does not join now it is more out of regard for Finland and the Nordic alliance than because of any difficulty she might have in relation to the EEC. Switzerland has such a conception of neutrality that she regards it as a politically sterile condition which prevents her even playing a part as a peaceful nation in bringing peace to mankind, in case she might be interpreted as acting in a hostile manner to some power.

By preserving our neutrality in the EEC, by keeping it intact and by not allowing it to be sullied, we can help to keep Europe a force interested in peace, not only within itself but for the world. The member nations of the EEC are as anxious as we should be to see Irish neutrality preserved without any interference or qualification. It is only by respecting our neutrality in that way that the EEC can convince the Doubting Thomases in Sweden and Switzerland of the EEC's total commitment to non-military activity and allay the suspicions of the eastern bloc regarding the intentions of the EEC. I hope we will renew without qualification our commitment to the principle of neutrality. It fits the three tests mentioned by the Minister—the national interest, the common interest and a fulfilment to moral and cultural values.

Sometimes the EEC is portrayed as an association of former colonial states that came together because they lost their colonies. This may be true so far as a description of the states is concerned, but it is not a true description of the purpose of establishing the EEC. This resulted out of the sense of shock and disgust that Europeans, by their own deliberate actions and folly, had killed 50 million fellow-Europeans in this century. Fifty million Europeans were killed by fellow-Europeans in pursuit of policies of non-co-operation which led to hostility and hate between nations and peoples.

It is because of our conviction that there is no future for mankind in policies of non-co-operation which lead to hostility and hatred that we believe positively in joining the EEC, with the rest of Europe and other nations in order to promote the positive virtues of co-operation and common interest. There is one law of political physics which cannot be too often stated and it is that small powers get most out of large bodies. There is a general feeling in some spheres in this country that Irish sovereignty will be lost in the EEC and that from now on Ireland will lose more than anybody else. The truth is that the mighty powers lose more in large bodies than smaller ones.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We would need to watch the DDT.

Mr. Ryan

DDT is going out of use because it has done more harm to users of it than to the small bodies. I am talking of the value the small powers get out of large bodies and I think the flea world to which Deputy O'Leary refers would acknowledge that small powers get a great deal of value out of large bodies.

An interesting speech from the Norwegian Foreign Minister might be usefully read into this debate. It was delivered at the Storting on 14th January and last night I heard Deputy Keating quote the same scripture for another purpose. His Excellency said:

History has taught us that small nations have experienced great difficulties in having their sovereignty respected in the international context. Power politics and the dictates of the great powers have often been the fate of small states. They were often not even consulted but had to accept the result presented to them by the great powers.

International organisations, however, give small nations the right of being consulted. That is what we are working to achieve, the right of consultation and the right to ensure our future is determined, not by the ex-parte wishes of the great powers, but after consultation with the little five foot high nations of the world who have a great role to play. And we can play it so long as we approach it in the positive manner.

Every international involvement by this country has been opposed in the past by the "little Irelanders". When first we achieved our independence we did so at that time as a State which was described as a dominion of the British Commonwealth. But those who at the time said that this would not give us freedom to achieve greater freedom were proved wrong in the event. When in 1923 this State sought to have the Treaty of 1921 recognised as an international treaty they were again laughed at and jeered by the "little Irelanders" here who professed to be more nationalistic than those they were attacking. Just as the "little Irelanders" at home jeered them so did the British Government of the day but nonetheless the Treaty of 1921 was accepted and registered in Geneva as an international agreement. When we sought to join the League of Nations the "little Irelanders" were against it saying that Ireland would be destroyed in this new mighty international organisation which would not respect the rights of small nations. There were those who saw little purpose and possible danger in joining the Council of Europe.

There was not quite as much sneering when we joined the United Nations many years later and, perhaps, there was still less when we went to join OECD but we have a resurrection of the same narrow outlook in these days when we are contemplating joining the EEC. One hopes the "little Irelanders" would read something of history and see that this little nation, the first in this century to achieve its freedom, has proved to the world what small bodies can get out of the larger ones and see that it is only by joining such associations and playing a full and positive part in them that we can get something for this country which would never be available to us if we stayed in isolation.

The EEC is committed not merely to economic growth but to human and social progress. It has political intentions; it desires to strengthen its own welfare by political developments. These are things which can come about in the course of time and we can be influenced by them if we stay outside whether or not we want to, or we can go in and influence the decisions in our favour by making our contribution there. Just as we showed Britain and the world that we can bend dominion status to convert a state of being a second rate nation into a state of being a first rate nation, so we can use the institutions and rules and influence within the EEC to work to our national interest and the common interest of all European nations and to promote what we believe in.

Earlier, I mentioned the need to promote nationalism in its true and worthwhile sense. I suppose it is because nationalism was related to the old Parliamentary Party that in certain circles it became an unacceptable doctrine and republicanism became the great national ethos. We need to get away from the arrogance we have seen associated with the self-appointed and self-styled republicans of the past 50 years who have often arrogated to themselves, without the authority of the people, the right to control events. In fact, we have seen them from time to time purport to exercise the very sovereignty of the people. What many so-called republicans have forgotten is that republicanism is, in fact, in conflict with democracy because republicanism involves representation only through representatives, whereas democracy is government directly or indirectly by all classes for the benefit of all classes. If we would contemplate our future, both internally and externally, in an atmosphere of democratic nationalism we might get a more beneficial future than the rather sterile past we have got from arrogant republicanism in the past 50 years.

What matters is not the form of government but rather the number of people who can achieve a contented existence under any form of government. If we can get away from the forms and the theories, we might, perhaps, achieve something worthwhile but we can only do it by escaping from all the symbols and paraphernalia of the past which have done so much harm and can only strangle us even more in the future.

The enlargement of the EEC is a world event of shattering significance because it will shatter many relationships, associations, attitudes and stands not only in Ireland but throughout the world. We live, therefore, in, perhaps, the most exciting time internationally since the foundation of the State. At present our Tricolour is ready to be unfurled together with the flags of nine other European nations. On 10th May our people are being asked to say whether or not they want the Irish Tricolour to be unfurled along with nine other flags of Europe. It is disappointing to see so many "small Irelanders" suggesting that the Irish flag should not be displayed with nine other European flags to show that Ireland is ready to play its part in a new and better Europe. It is the kind of mistake which if it were successful —I do not believe it will be—would certainly disgrace us not merely in this generation but for many generations to come.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of the developing nations, the nations of the Third World, to those people who, as the Minister correctly stated, once looked on us as their leader, as their fighter, as the state which they sought to emulate. There have been a number of unhappy developments in some of these countries. In Rhodesia, for example, we see a terrible state of distress, and certain political developments which are in conflict with every accepted democratic principle. We have lent our vote in the United Nations to a resolution which says that there should be no settlement in Rhodesia without majority rule.

We sometimes seem to use the procedure of the United Nations to give us a let out. We feel that we can just cast our vote or deliver an oration in the United Nations and we need do no more. I do not think that is good enough. The United Nations is not there to make life easier for us as a state, or to make life easier for individual states. There is still individual responsibility. We should continue to conduct our own diplomatic onslaught wherever we see injustice occurring.

Deputy Esmonde asked the Taoiseach recently whether the Government will take steps to assist in the sending of volunteers to work in developing countries. Again the Government seem to be too anxious to rely upon international agencies rather than taking initiatives in this field. I do not think it is good enough for a country such as ours to rely upon international agencies to do work which we believe should be done. For humanitarian reasons, we should like to see the Government making their own arrangements to assist the developing countries directly.

I know that an organisation such as Gorta does this, but there is a great deal more talent and readiness to help available in this country than can be translated into monetary subscriptions to Gorta. Many of our young people are skilled beyond the immediate capacity of this society of ours to absorb them. Sometimes they go to Britain, to America or elsewhere to work in a temporary capacity, but many of them would be only too willing to work in developing nations if the Government would provide the machinery and the facilities to allow them to go there directly as representatives of Ireland.

Were we to apply the Minister's three principles on foreign policy we would find that this is an acceptable activity because it would serve the national interest—we would get a good name by doing it—it would serve the common interest by serving the interests of the countries we would be helping as well as our own, and it would give us an opportunity to act as well as to preach on moral and social values. At the Chile conference yesterday, where I understand we were represented, Dr. Mansholt, who is much abused by some socialists in this country, made a suggestion which I would hope would be accepted by all in the EEC. His suggestion was that the EEC should take an additional 15 per cent annually of produce from each of the developing nations so that they could be assured that the EEC would take 15 per cent more in imports from them. This kind of help would be of great value.

I do not think our people are prepared—and I certainly hope they are not prepared—to accept a lower standard of living. I do not think that, having had valuable relationships with the world, our people believe that we should now sever those connections. We cannot do it. We should not do it. We will not do it. I believe that on 10th May our people will vote to join the larger and more worthwhile Community in which we can achieve in our time what we have been striving to achieve for generations: a worthwhile existence for our people with better opportunities in the years ahead.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In his speech the Minister attempted something which, I suppose, was a welcome feature in a debate of this nature. He attempted tentatively to chart what should be the guiding principles of an Irish foreign policy. I am not saying that I am very satisfied with the type of guidelines he provided. He seemed to me to err too much in the direction of a grand philosophy and to fly a little bit too far from reality, and the governing reality of an Irish foreign policy as I would see it. It is an elegant piece of work.

Dr. O'Donovan

What else would you expect?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a polished piece of work. I do not know that it adds up to very much but it consisted of six or seven pages of good prose. I commend the Minister on what he was attempting. I suppose in blunt language Irish foreign policy is Anglo-Irish relations writ large. If it is not that, it is nothing. That may cut out a lot of the subtleties, but largely that is what it is: relations between here and Britain and our attempts around the world to right that relationship, to balance it up, and to make up for our inferiority politically and economically to our larger next door neighbour.

In general, the pursuit of our foreign policy is the pursuit of independence, subject to all the limitations of the pursuit of independence politically and economically by a small country in today's tough world. In a country which suffers from a surfeit of official idealism, at any rate, I do not think we have any need to invoke idealistic motives for our foreign policy. It goes without saying that we do not wish to conquer anybody else. It goes without saying that we pose a threat to no other power in this part of the world. I do not think this inability should be made into some big idealistic commitment to peace. We pursue our independence economically and politically and this obviously poses a threat to no other country. Therefore, by necessity we are committed to peace. Peace is in our own interests economically and politically. We pose a military threat to nobody.

Obviously our relations with our large neighbour have never been so bad. Whatever about a slight change in the relations between both Governments over the past few weeks since the Heath initiative, the fact of the matter is that, as between the people, the relationship between both countries has never been as bad. A concreate result of this deterioration in relations between the people is the probable fall-off this year in tourism and the obvious but as yet unpublished fall-off in industrial orders for our products in Britain. From reading the Minister's speech one would not be aware of this point of crisis in Anglo-Irish relations. Rather, one would get the impression from the speech that things are as they were in former years during the term of office of Deputy Aiken when we could take it for granted that there would be good relations between this country and Britain. That was a time when the Northern problem had not become the issue that it has become since. At page nine of his speech the Minister says that the initiative taken by the British Government is a step forward in seeking a lasting solution to the remaining problem of this historic relationship. I suppose that is a roundabout way of saying that what has happened as a result of the Heath initiative has at least been some improvement in the deterioration in relations between this country and Britain. That initiative is in grave peril as the Minister knows very well. If the violence continues, if the men of violence persist in their own campaign, this whole struggle in the North will enter a deeper and more serious phrase, one in which the spectrum of a war over the whole island and in which brother would be fighting against brother, becomes a dreadful reality.

Obviously, all internees must be released. This is the only way in which the elected representatives of the SDLP can take part in talks. The Health initiative is barren and holds no possibility of an improvement in the situation and all the efforts of Mr. Whitelaw will be of no avail unless the elected leaders of the Opposition are enabled to take part in talks. The continuation of detention means that these talks cannot take place. The abolishing of Stormont cannot be said to have been a retrograde step. I have always been of the opinion that those who foresaw Stormont as the germ of the future assembly of the Irish people were not examining the creature that was Stormont and had been Stormont down through the years. Stormont was the local centre that meted out discrimination in jobs and housing. It was the signification of the triumph of Unionism in that part of the country. It was the headquarters of the Orange Order. Therefore, for anybody to have regarded it as the germ of a future assembly of the Irish people was not to have appreciated the facts.

If the initiative is to have any chance, the elected leaders must be enabled to take part in talks whereby all the people of the North can reach agreement as to what arrangement they can come to regarding government of the area. This Dáil from being totally silent on the North up to 1967 has, since 1969, become interested in the whole Northern question and since then we have had more debates on the issue than we had before then from the foundation of the State.

I have no wish to turn this debate into a discussion on the North but the Minister might have dealt in greater detail with this matter and given us his own ideas on it. I regard him as being correct in saying that important though it was to speak to people around the world about this particular problem the fact is that we as Irish people are left with the problem in which almost one million Irishmen and women have a different political allegiance to the majority of the other people of this island who favour independence and a separation from Britain. This problem cannot be settled by people living outside our shores but it can be helped by co-operation from Britain. Anglo-Irish relations are a basic factor in Irish foreign policy but some of the work towards unity must be begun and ended on this island.

I do not think that anybody who knows the problem will suggest that it is possible to have unity as a result of armed conflict or that gunfire is a good means of changing Unionists from their political allegiance. We all appreciate that the job of getting reconciliation under way means that the North must go through a period in which Catholic and Protestant learn once more to acknowledge each other as human beings. We know that the price of the violence, the price of making the wrong assessment and of thinking that violence can bring about unity, has been paid during the past few years in a total breakdown of any kind of relationship that existed between Catholic and Protestant. This is a price which all the people of this island must meet yet and nobody outside our shores can prevent us having to meet the cost of the events of the past two or three years.

An initiative is required from our side. I endeavoured to table a question today asking the Taoiseach whether he would not utilise the referendum on votes at 18 to present a new Constitution to the people of this State. The question was disallowed on the grounds that somebody had asked a question on similar lines about two months ago.

To hear some people talk of changes in the Constitution, one would imagine that the whole path to unity would be simplified and brought forward in date as a result of certain changes. I do not follow such argument. I agree that the Constitution is an important aspect of this whole question but the economic dimension of unity probably poses the greater problem in the long run.

Mr. Moore

Hear, hear.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We could set about having a new Constitution tomorrow and surely nobody here would suggest that we should delay in respect of anything we could do towards solving the problem. We could frame a new Constitution that would be free of the sections contained in the present one that offend. That would not be a gigantic task. Much to the horror of some of my friends, I suggested here before that we could do worse than look at the first Free State Constitution, the Constitution of 1922. Admittedly, that particular Constitution contained certain provisions regarding relationships between this country and Britain which we would not need to incorporate now but in relation to civil rights the 1922 Constitution was superior to the Constitution of 1937. It was nearer the spirit of a united Ireland than was its successor and, to my knowledge, it contained no feature to which Irishmen in the North of Ireland, regardless of whatever might be their tradition, could find objection. Therefore, we do not need a great deal of preparation. In the course of a few months we could prepare a new Constitution, consult the people in Northern Ireland, ensure that it anticipated in all its provisions a future all-Ireland Constitution, whenever that would come about, but ensure that Unionists were deprived of one argument when talking about a united Ireland and when charging that the Constitution of this Republic involved provisions which many of them found repugnant and which involved for them a limitation of their civil rights, as they saw them. We could at least do that tomorrow. That is a step that, for political reasons which I do not understand, we refuse to take. I do not exaggerate its impact. I do not suggest that it will convert one Unionist to the belief in the justness of the unity of this country. I suggest that it would deprive many enemies of the unity of this country of a strong argument.

Anybody who has taken part in any discussions or programmes, in the United States or anywhere outside this country, on the desirability of the unity of this country will know how powerful an argument it is in the hands of Unionists that our Constitution has provisions which do not faithfully anticipate the Constitution of a future united Ireland. Yet, this is a step we could take now without any further delay. We do not have to have the permission of Mr. Heath. We do not have to go to London or Belfast to do it. We can do it ourselves. We can enact a new Constitution with updated social directives. We can provide in that Constitution a fundamental guarantee which our own Constitution does, to some extent, at present. I do not suggest this would be something to be examined solely by politicians. We could consult with people in outside life, such as the judiciary and various organisations. We could also consult with Northern people, and with whoever, in fact, would be willing to talk with us.

The weakness of the 1937 Constitution may be due to the fact that it was the work of too few people. There was not sufficient consultation with the Irish people. Too few people were involved in its production. This is an initiative which I suggest. We do not need to go anywhere. This is an initiative on which we can embark ourselves. I do not exaggerate its value or suggest that it would ease all problems. It would deprive the enemies of Irish unity of one strong argument which they have at present.

The Minister went on a trip abroad when affairs here were in a bad way a few months ago. The Minister went to Washington. I do not see anything wrong about his going there. That acknowledges that the US is probably the primary world power. The Minister's visit to Washington did not make that claim any stronger or weaker. It was correct that he should go there. I said at the time, and I still believe, that if one consults with one great power on a problem one should equally have contacted his opposite number in Moscow. The Minister should have done so if he was serious about explaining, as he says he was, our problems. The Minister said that we simply wished to consult with a great power and to explain our problem to our friends in the US so that they could speak to their friends in Britain, and ask them to stop being a nuisance to us. The Minister should logically have contacted his opposite number in Moscow. That may seem to be an inflammatory thing to say. Another country in similar straits would have done so.

It is trumpeted abroad that we should have gone to speak with the EEC countries. I believe we should have done so. There is a lot in what Deputy Ryan said. The Deputy said that we should have consulted in Europe first and then gone to Washington. I do not know which way it should have been done, but since Washington has so much to do with the shape of Europe it probably does not make any difference. If our problem was serious enough to be discussed with one great power it should have been discussed also with another great power. I am not suggesting that one great power would have been more impressed by our story than another. No matter what social system they may say they have, all great powers, in fact, are much the same in their principles at home or abroad in relation to foreign policy.

I do not understand how it was suggested that we, of all the so-called future partners in the EEC, should not have diplomatic relations with an Eastern European country. All the EEC countries have diplomatic relations with an Eastern European country. Is it suggested that Ireland, on becoming a member of the EEC, should have no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? What rule of life suggests that while Italy, France, Germany or Norway all have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union Ireland should not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? What danger does this hold? What temptation is there? What approval would it entail of the social system in the Soviet Union? Having diplomatic relations with a country does not convery that one approves of the social system of the country involved. Nobody would suggest that the Soviet Union's record in freedom operations is to be admired. Let us not forget Budapest or Czechoslovakia. That does not get away from the fact that the Soviet Union is a great world power with every bit as much legitimacy to be regarded as a world power as the US. It does not turn us all into young pioneer communists to suggest that we should have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

Some years ago I suggested that we should have diplomatic relations with Poland if people objected to our having diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, as if that country were the scarlet woman herself. We should have considered having diplomatic relations with Poland. It is ludicrous that we should be entering the EEC without having such diplomatic relations, when every other country in the EEC has diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries. So far as I know all these countries have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. It portrays a colonial attitude to say that we may not do as others do in this matter.

I do not see how a country can be taken as having a foreign policy that is adequate if it ignores one whole side of this part of the world in which we live. How can we suggest that our country has a foreign policy when we ignore one such large country? How can we suggest that we are neutral? What is the meaning of neutrality if we have no diplomatic relations with the damned on the other side? What is the point of indulging in the making of strident anti-British speeches here when, in fact a campaign is launched by several of the cheaper versions of the British press, which we have seen dealing so blindly with the North of Ireland, suggesting that we should not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? Why should we run when these newspapers suggest that it would be a dangerous thing for Ireland to have diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries? Is this why politicans here should run for cover in this so-called supreme Parliament and call for a debate in this House? Must we be for ever frightened of the Mother Macree vote in this country? Have we a foreign policy or have we not? Have we only a pretence of a foreign policy or one on loan from the Foreign Office?

I am under no illusion about our reasons for joining the EEC. Our wish to join the EEC arises from our economic dependence, which the Minister frankly admits, on the British market. Once Britain decided she was going in we were left with very little choice. Considering the economic policies pursued by the State over 40 or 50 years, very strong arguments could be adduced favouring the membership of this country in the EEC. Therefore, we cannot point to any philosophical reasons that would compare with the strong material reason involved in that dependent relationship.

However, I was disappointed in the Minister's speech. Those of us who oppose membership would have expected to be given some reasons for qualifying our opposition, that the Minister would have mentioned some of the political objectives we would have in that community. The Minister's speech reads like the speech of any other Minister in the Cabinet. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, as Deputy Ryan rightly says, must have built up, by now, a bank of sophisticated knowledge as a result of his numerous visits in Europe, America and elsewhere, for six or seven pages dallies with the idea of enunciating a foreign policy. We were entitled to expect something distinctive from the Minister in regard to the EEC, that the Minister would say: "Here are the political goals and the kind of political future I would see in the Europe we propose to join." Certain political decisions have to be made if this country joins the EEC. Is it proposed to bring a political illiterate into the EEC? Our foreign policy so far would suggest we lie in that kind of country. Have we any viewpoint on European security? Do we know there is such a thing as a Warsaw Pact? Do we wait until the decision is made for or against before we open up diplomatic relations with East European countries?

Surely the day has arrived when we may say that the "Reds under the bed" league have finally taken leave of Irish politics. To listen to certain politicians one might believe they were still in their heyday. I have confidence enough in the maturity of Irish people to believe that those bad old days are gone. The very same speech which did not mention the question as to whether we should have diplomatic relations with East European countries, in three or four lines disposed of the matter that our vote had been behind the admission of the People's Republic of China. Not so many years ago mentioning the name of the People's Republic of China was enough to drive a politician out of public life. Some years ago the Minister's predecessor faced strong opposition in this House stretching over almost two years of a Dáil's life, as politicians pitched into him every day on the mere suspicion that he might have permitted a discussion of the admission of China into the United Nations. Today there is no comment. Today everybody accepts the admission into the United Nations of the People's Republic of China whose social system is no more desirable than that of the Soviet Union. Freedom is just as scarce in the People's Republic of China. Yet there is no protest in this Assembly about the support which we gave to the admission of the People's Republic of China into the United Nations.

I am all for discussion in this House on widening our diplomatic contacts, and I see nothing wrong with the Fine Gael motion saying that the matter should be discussed here. I think it would be a very useful convention if, before we open up diplomatic relations with any country, this House could discuss it. However, we should not be dishonest in this matter. We should not seek to stroke the prejudices of people, to suggest that some people are more Christian or more democratic than others because they do not approve of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. I predict that, before a Minister for Foreign Affairs comes with his next speech on this Estimate, in two or three lines, he will also be writing off the fact that we have opened up diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

If the objective of our foreign policy is independence, political and economic, and if no less a body than the Exporters Association, which is certainly not a home for subversives, of dangerous revolutionaries, can say that our trade could possibly be helped by the opening up of diplomatic relations with these countries, how can any one here who wishes to see an expansion in Irish jobs in conscience stand up and argue against it? As I say, it does not imply approval of these regimes. I do not approve of these regimes; they have little respect for human freedom or democracy, but they certainly exist and will continue to exist with or without diplomatic relations with us. In the meantime, we may help our job situation and our balance of trade with these countries by opening up diplomatic relations with at least some of them. I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on the extension of our diplomatic relations. I know that in foreign policy heretofore the whole content of the debate was related to who had the last sherry at the last embassy reception in which foreign capital. That may be an over-generalisation, but Deputy Burke will recall those stirring debates on such topics over many years.

The smaller the country the more essential is an adequate foreign service. A powerful country with a strong home market can afford to ignore the eddies of international opinion. It can afford to ignore the sensitivities of its neighbours, can afford to miss opportunities, but not a small country. Ideally, we should try to have a diplomatic presence in all the major countries, always attempting to improve our trading position. In our straitened circumstances, with only a limited amount of money available, more could be done in those countries where we have consular or diplomatic status to involve any Irish people who might be in such countries, private citizens, in the work of the consulate or embassy.

There have been complaints. I read one lately that a British consular office in Belgium, I think, dealt with a request by either a university or a drama group in a matter of Irish cultural interest. The tragedy is that so thin is our diplomatic representation around the world that I suppose British consular offices very often supply matter of Irish interest. We must be more imaginative than the ordinary protocol connected with diplomatic relations would require. In many countries there are Irish graduates or professional people or Irish people in some other capacity who would very willingly give their service gratis in this connection. It should be possible for the embassy or consulate to involve such Irish nationals in the work of the embassy or consulate. It would be of some assistance, I think, to have part-time diplomats who could lecture on matters of Irish interest.

The Minister should look into this. In most European countries and in the United States of America there are Irish professional people who could take on this particular work. It would certainly be some improvement on the British consular office sending out pictures of the Lakes of Killarney when it is really Lough Neagh and describing James Joyce and George Bernard Shaw as British. This would put an end to the cultural pilfering that goes on because we do not have adequate diplomatic representation. I do not suggest that the personnel in our diplomatic service is deficient in any way or unacquainted with Irish culture. I suggest we might even have some economists in our foreign service. Careerists might suggest that this would be doing what the shift workers allege the other ESB operatives have been doing in the last few days, taking away their jobs, but we should have room in our diplomatic service for one or two people from outside the service. The Minister should explore this idea. It may not be a popular idea with those who work their way up the ill-paid ladder of the foreign service, and ill-paid it is. Our diplomats are at a great disadvantage in comparison with their opposite numbers in other embassies and consulates. They do excellent work, the maximum that can be humanly expected from them. I am a bit worried about a possible "Old Boys" network growing up in our foreign service and it would do no harm at all if one or two posts were reserved to meet what Mr. Macmillan in South Africa described as "the wind of change". It is an idea that could be examined.

The Minister devoted a great deal of his speech to the United Nations. If our entry into the EEC becomes a reality possibly so much space will not be devoted to the United Nations in the future since we will have to be more concerned with events in Europe. The disappointing feature is that we do not seem to have taken any decision on the kind of foreign policy we would like to see in that Europe.

It is not sufficient to say that Ireland renders aid to underdeveloped nations through her voluntary agencies. Only the other day I was hearing about a British mission to Nepal where six doctors and 12 nurses have been sent to combat tuberculosis. We have a proud missionary tradition and one would imagine that long before now the State itself would have become involved in providing aid to underdeveloped countries. Youth today is more committed than it was in the selfish days of the Minister's youth and surely the State should assist these young people after university to go abroad and help these underdeveloped countries instead of losing them to some impersonal international body. The world gives no credit for hiding one's light under a bushel and we should examine the question of sending our young people abroad for two or three years to help the underdeveloped countries. We have doctors, engineers, architects and so on who would be only too willing to work abroad. If we have a good name as a non-colonial nation, then let us capitalise on that good name and ensure that the work done by this State on behalf of underdeveloped nations is known and admired. If we cannot send powerful armies to help our friends when they are in trouble we can at least help them in peacetime to combat disease and to spread education. This is the more christian way of helping as against making speeches about peace at international forums like the United Nations. The tragedy of the underdeveloped countries is that the countries with the money which trade with them trade with them to their further degradation and oppression. The help that is given is paltry. We are a small country. We are not fully developed, but we have to some extent a sophisticated structure educationally and we could provide the personnel to help these underdeveloped countries. There would be no strings attached. The State could continue the historic and generous work of the missionaries of the past by ensuring that our young lay people can go out and work for two or three years in the underdeveloped countries.

It seems to me to be an indictment of our so-called Christianity and of the kind of charitable nation we are supposed to be that this has not yet been done and this State has not yet put its hand to the wheel to try to help those less fortunate countries. I hope the Minister will consider this a bit more seriously and come up with certain proposals. It need not cost a great deal. I think we have the young people who are willing to work in these countries for a period of years. All it need cost is the will to set up the organisation and to invoke the aid of these young people. We have been proud of the peace work of Irish soldiers abroad. Equally, we could be proud of the work of Irish youth abroad if human standards in these countries are to be preserved. We have an embassy in India. How much more valuable it would be to have in India also, a country with which we have many historic ties, a group of young people working in some area of need there—in agriculture, in irrigation, in the medical field, in the setting-up of factories. All these capacities are ours. We have only to tap them to send the young people out to help in these areas. We would not be the losers. Our young people would have participated in the most exciting work of this century. If it is a dark century the thing that marks it off from other centuries is that at least it has displayed in some areas, such as the ones I am talking about, a greater compassion between man and man.

I said at the beginning I would not speak for long and I intend to follow that advice given to myself. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given us any information on the kind of political direction he would like to see in Europe. I am disappointed that the Minister gave no indication of the establishment of diplomatic relations with one or other of the East European countries again carefully saying, lest somebody misunderstand us, misinterpret us, and we know that such people, unfortunately, are abroad, that the establishment of such diplomatic relations would not imply approval of these regimes. It would simply mean that we had grown up at least in relation to foreign affairs. I do not believe that a country can be said to have foreign policy where all its embassies, all its contacts, are with what are roughly called the western countries without any diplomatic contact with the East European countries. I suggest that if we do join the EEC it would be ludicrous to think that every one of our so-called partners in the EEC would be enjoying diplomatic relations with East European countries, ourselves alone having none.

I do not think anybody would suggest that any of these countries are in any way soft on communism, that in any way they approve of these regimes, but, obviously, they find that their trade is advanced by having diplomatic relations with these countries. No less a body than the Irish Exporters' Association has called frequently for the establishment of such relations which they imagine would help our trade. Certain sections of the British press would not be pleased. That well known Republican, Mr. Enoch Powell, would not be pleased, but if the worth of our so-called foreign policy is that if the British press does not like what we are doing we must stop, then I suggest it is time we packed up the whole myth of having a foreign policy. I think we should go ahead despite the British newspapers. I think we would gain if not greater activity on the part of those to whom we seek at least greater appreciation of our problems. If Washington knew that we spoke also to Moscow I do not think it would alarm Washington that we were suddenly going Red or anything like that. I do not think it would be suggested that this was happening simply by the ordinary job of setting up diplomatic relations.

I urge also that since Irish foreign policy is simply Anglo-Irish relations writ large, since that relationship has deteriorated very badly ever since the eruption of the Northern tragedy, since it now hangs by the very delicate balance indeed of the Heath initiative, if the internees are not released and political talks take place and the violence becomes intensive, then, quite obviously, on this island we face a bloody kind of doom, certainly a very bad turn of events. I simply say it is disappointing that this Government cannot take one initiative which is open to them and that is to produce a Constitution for the attention of the people of this State which will, to the greatest extent possible, anticipate the provisions of a future all-Ireland Constitution. I repeat that I do not suggest that such a Constitution being passed here would mean that Unionists would from that moment be committed to the idea of a united Ireland. I simply say that it would deprive many people who oppose a united Ireland of the argument that our Constitution includes clauses that are repugnant and that it would limit their civil rights. It has already been announced that Mr. Roibeárd Molloy will go to the country with a referendum in October seeking votes at 18. This is a very non-contentious matter. None of the parties here is likely to oppose that. None of the parties represented here is likely to get many votes at 18. I suggest we should avail of that opportunity in October of presenting a new Constitution to the people.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Since the Sunday Independent gave the chart we may all join in.

Mr. Corish

Since they gave the chart we had better all join in.

Mr. M. O'Leary

One of these days they are going to do a chart on the content. I know the great bond that exists between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach, how much they hold one another in trust, how close they have been over the months and years of crisis. How much closer they may be now I do not know. I would urge on the Minister who has met the kind of opposition I am talking about abroad, the people who say: "Of course your country's Constitution has certain provisions which the Northern people do not like" and then you must go through a rigmarole explaining that in reality we do not have Protestants for breakfast here. If we could eliminate from our Constitution the provisions that are repugnant to many Unionists we would be doing a good day's work on the long road to Irish unity.

If somebody says this is an arduous task I say there is a good working model in the Free State Constitution of 1922. I am not suggesting that the citizen status is not much the same but I would say that the 1922 Constitution is silent where it should be silent and if it cured some of the garrulousness of the 1937 Constitution it would be no harm. The most perfect Constitutions are those that have said little and the ones that have always got humanity into trouble are the ones that have gone on over 100 pages.

I would urge on the Minister, who must be as embarassed as I am, and probably more, that he should speak to the Taoiseach about this matter and that they could avail of the referendum in October which will have a very bare look about it, votes at 18 which nobody opposes, and we could have a brand new Constitution for October. We could have consulted with the Northern Opposition— Unionists, SDLP and any other person who wishes to talk to us—we could have consulted with organisations in Irish life, we could send a copy to Mr. Ted Heath on the following day, when it has been passed, informing him that no longer could there be any objection to the Irish Constitution.

This is a worthwhile initiative. There are certain dangers, admittedly: we may, in fact, be bringing about the possibility at some future stage of Irish unity. What I find in this assembly and elsewhere is that we talk about this matter endlessly but any move in that direction is taboo. I know—and the Minister for Foreign Affairs knows this—that the Taoiseach holds very strongly to the view that constitutional changes are as much part of the bargaining in relation to a future united Ireland as anything else. I do not hold to such a view. The leader of my party does not hold to such a view. This party does not hold to such a view. It is time that we tested the will of the Irish people on this matter, found out how much real desire for unity lurks behind all the rhetorical adherence to unity that there has been over the last few years. There are several unpleasant features in that unity which we must face up to. I am not denying that the economic aspects are the big major problems but I certainly think that the constitutional matter is one that we could take into our own hands immediately.

The Minister is guarded in saying that the Northern problem in no way can be settled by the intervention of any big international brother. I am not suggesting that it can, because there are certain problems to be settled between Irishmen at home. It must be settled at some stage. I certainly would suggest that our consular representatives in the United States could possibly be not as strict on protocol in refusing to see American politicians who may be interested in the Irish question. They could do a bit more in that direction. I am not suggesting that we have to join the democratic bandwagon in this presidential election year. I am simply saying that we could certainly utilise more on the ground in the United States. We should not be too chary of talking to people who wish to talk to us. Perhaps we suffer there from being a little over-sensitive about our actions being misunderstood, perhaps, by the present incumbent of the American Presidential Office. We should talk to American politicians in Congress or Senate or wherever they are, who wish to talk to us. Our consulate doors should be open to them and full information should be available to them. I do not think we would have anything to worry about in that direction.

The Minister said very guardedly that he hoped the Heath initiative was a step forward. We all think it is a step forward. It is surrounded by difficulties, of course. It is certainly true to say that if the men of violence continue with their campaign, if they think that a united Ireland can be gained by wading through the blood of Catholics and Protestants, they are woefully wrong and, worse than that, they will involve the whole country in an awful ruin. A North/South confrontation is the next stage, remember, if we do not succeed in providing for the North of Ireland a period, a phase, which could allow people once more to talk to one another, a period of reconstruction. If conditions do not permit that to happen then the next step, the final act, is a really bloody confrontation over the whole island. It gives me no satisfaction to say that. I can almost see this entire island disappearing into the Atlantic, becoming an Atlantic Haiti—that is not an exaggeration— subsiding—explosions, murders and pillage, no country outside knowing what the quarrel was all about except that it was something left over from the 17th century occurring in 1972, a religious war on a massive scale.

Anybody who thinks that this complicated question can be settled by bombs on the roads or shootings, anybody who thinks that it is the grand follow up of the 1922 struggle, is woefully inadequately provided with the facts of that situation. The Government here could do more in providing leadership on that issue. There is a grave silence, so to speak, on the part of Government Ministers at the present time. Other politicians have spoken but there appears to be a tendency on the part of Dublin leaders at present to stand by and to let the hierarchy do the work. I can see that internees must be released. Otherwise talks cannot take place. If this period of reconstruction cannot take place, I despair of seeing a united Ireland in this century.

Outside this House, in the country, there has been a great cowardice on the whole issue. It has been a very chastening period. Those who talked about our Irish democracy have seen several people slink away and say nothing when it was in peril. It may yet be in greater peril over the weeks to come. I have been astonished at the journalists who have fallen by the wayside. I have been astonished at the politicians who have fallen by the wayside. They may come out yet when the sun shines again to say that they were on the side of democracy all the time. I hope the sun comes out very soon for them. I notice that the Government numbers very few persons of ministerial rank who have come out and spoken honestly, taken certain risks, and said what they believed to be true of the situation.

I have never believed, in relation to the Northern question, that it was a time for ordinary politics. Certain Opposition persons in this House believe that great electoral riches are to be won by being as silent as possible —the Opposition of silence. They believe that with these awful events unfolding in the North, the more what one says is indistinguishable from the most thoughtless slogans, the more it approximates to that kind of talk, the safer one is. Perhaps they are right. I do not know. Those who believe that are certainly not fulfilling their obligations as elected representatives in this time of peril for all elected representatives and for democracy.

I am often amused by the people, the civil servants, those in settled positions, who think that democracy can go down the high road but that they will remain where they are. I am amused by those journalists who think that they will be as free to talk about various people under the new regime as they were under the old.

Mr. Desmond

They will have their passes from the Provisionals. They will be all right.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is one very small thing that we could do. I plead with the Minister. We could have a new Constitution before the electorate come October. We could take the bare look off the Minister for Local Government's innocuous little Bill for votes at 18. Who opposes votes at 18? In fact, there is a body of constitutional thought that a constitutional amendment may not in fact be necessary for that purpose. At least, some people talk in this way. I would suggest that we can have this new constitution by October. I am not saying that it will change one Unionist's opinion in relation to a united Ireland, but it will at least deprive some of their spokesmen abroad and at home of a strong arm against unity. Again I appeal to the Minister to talk with the Taoiseach, to try to budge the Taoiseach from his incorrigible position on this matter.

The Taoiseach appears to see no difference between altering a provision of the Constitution and talking about the price of bullocks. He seems to think that it is all part of the economic, political, philosophical pack of cards that will be dealt out on that wonderful day of unity. What the Taoiseach is, in fact, doing at present is stalling in an area of activity in which, in fact, he could take an initiative. We could take an initiative here in Dublin. There are few enough things that we can do solely on our own in Dublin to help but here is one area in which we could help and we would have enthusiastic support. We would be helping the people like John Hume in the North who have been urging over many years about the necessity for a kind of secular united Ireland. We would be speaking across the barricades. We would be suggesting that people here in Dublin were not simply willing to hide behind the gunsmoke and once it cleared willing to come out and say that we were sorry for their plight. It would suggest we are serious about unity.

This is the kind of gesture that is called for after the Heath initiative. God knows we have no reason to like Tory Prime Ministers, but let us not all say now that that initiative was all we expected. It was a major initiative and it should be met by an initiative here in Dublin. It should not be one of these initiatives over many months and weeks as we see the old acts coming in again, the old incidents recur and multiply. We should meet that initiative and admit that it was a big initiative which attempted honestly and genuinely to do something, to make something of the sorry Northern Ireland state, to make something more normal of it.

It permitted, I think, of the only road forward towards unity.

Therefore, I think Dublin must now give some gesture, some acknowledgement and at least recognise the seriousness of the situation. I read where one of those visiting British Opposition politicians in Dublin last week talked about an easy relaxed atmosphere in Dublin. I do not know which constituency he was talking about or to which politicians he was talking but I can see what he means. If he went around official quarters he would get very little impression that we were doing very much at present. The game has changed. It may be true to say that by doing nothing the Taoiseach has forced others to take the initiative. Probably we will be hearing that claim shortly elsewhere.

There is no longer time for sitting in silence without an initiative from here in sight. The Taoiseach owes it to the country to make a gesture. He owes it to that ambition which he has said prompted him to enter politics in the first place—he said he entered politics to bring about unity in Ireland and he did not mean unity in his party. He said at another time that he would leave politics if it helped to create unity. One gesture, one strong act on the part of the Government, which would have the enthusiastic support of my party, would be to put a new Constitution before the people in October. Of course one may take the lawyer's excuse and say this is too large a task, that we do not have the time. I say we could profit from it. We can look at the Free State Constitution of 1922, a Constitution which in its civil rights provisions, a phrase probably unknown in those days, understood more the temper, the problems and anticipated more accurately a future all-Ireland Constitution than the thing we have been living under since 1937.

If I would fault the Minister's opening speech it is because it seems to me to evade several vital matters such as the EEC and diplomatic relations with eastern European countries. In the latter case we should refuse to take orders from Enoch Powell or the British newspapers. We should set up diplomatic relations if other EEC countries with whom we propose to unite in the near future have diplomatic relations with eastern Europe. By having such diplomatic relations they do not signify that they necessarily approve of these political regimes. Why should we be the odd one out, the last knights of Europe when it comes to having anything to do with these nefarious regimes?

The Minister's speech in four lines congratulated himself on the support he gave to the People's Republic of China when they were seeking entry to the United Nations. As I have said, that cost the Minister's predecessor in office two years of blood and sweat in this House as he explained over and over again that he had simply sought permission to have the whole China issue debated. We live in changed times and we should meet these changed times in the directions I have mentioned.

Mr. P. J. Burke

My first duty tonight is to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the excellent work he has been doing abroad in respect of the Irish people. Deputy Hillery's work has been outstanding, particularly in relation to the Northern situation. We can hear enemies of our democratic system say that the Minister or the other members of the Government did not do anything for the people of Northern Ireland. That has not been said in the friendly nations of the world where opinion of the Minister is very high. I had the pleasure of being in New Delhi at a meeting of the inter-Parliamentary Union and I was very pleased to hear the high opinions of him expressed by the diplomats who received us.

On the North, the Minister succeeded in bringing pressure to bear on the British Government to bring forward initiatives. That was a big job and he did it well. When he went abroad among the friendly nations the Minister did not, as he has told the House, press those nations in respect of Northern Ireland. All he did was to bring to their attention the tragedies in the North and to get them to use their influence with Britain to end them. We who fought in the Civil War and earlier have become mature and we realise that after thousands of people have been killed and left homeless the end must come around the table. After 13 people had been killed in Derry, the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs decided to withdraw our Ambassador in London but they did not break the diplomatic link. We as an independent State are most anxious to see the whole country united. There are people who feel they have a right to this and that we have no right. We fought a civil war and shot one another down over the Six Counties.

Mr. Coogan

You have no right to go wrong then.

Mr. P. J. Burke

We went through a civil war and we did everything possible when we did not want to accept the Treaty as it was. They tell us that we are Home Rulers and Free Staters but I suppose in a democratic State you have to listen to this. You cannot have any meeting in the city of Dublin to discuss any political affairs without having a crowd outside with banners.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. P. J. Burke

I will keep to the point. I appeal to the people who criticise us in our regard to foreign policy. Their criticisms are completely undeserved. As a party we are anxious for a united Ireland. We had gradually built up the economy of this country and if nothing had happened in the North we would have overtaken the British economy in a few years. The people who started the trouble in the North of Ireland were the Orangemen who were responsible for holding down 40 per cent of the population for over 50 years. England are trying to rectify that now with direct rule.

I cannot understand the Orangemen or Brian Faulkner. He came to Dublin on many occasions and he knows that his fellow-kinsmen are treated well enough by us and that he was welcome on any occasion he came here. People like him are trying to divide the Irish nation. They say they could not come in here under our Constitution but 40 per cent of our people have lived under the Constitution in the North when they said it was a Protestant Parliament for Protestant people.

We want people of goodwill to go to the North and meet the people there. There are some men of goodwill in the North. Captain Terence O'Neill as Prime Minister was a man of goodwill and he could see that it was right to come to Dublin and he welcomed the late Seán Lemass when he went to the North. He lost his Prime Ministership over this spirit of goodwill. He was up against the hardcore bigots in the North. Some of those people still preach about things which happened 300 years ago.

When I was a member of the Council of Europe I visited Berlin and I was shown the Berlin Wall. My first reaction on looking at it was to condemn East Germany and communism for it. When I spoke at the Council of Europe I suggested that East Germany and West Germany should get together and should establish good relations. The present Chancellor of West Germany was Lord Mayor of Berlin at that time and he came across the House with the German delegation at the Council of Europe and spoke to me after I said they should start talking to one another and try to knock down the barriers which were very bitter at that period. They succeeded in doing that. Recently there has been a breakthrough and there are diplomatic relations between East and West Germany. Relations between East and West Germany were one hundred times more bitter than those of the Orangemen in the North towards the South of Ireland.

When the civil war in the United States was over and when General Lee surrendered to General Grant at an impromptu gathering in Washington some of the hardcore Northerners said to Abraham Lincoln: "We have badly beaten the South. We will disfranchise the members of the South, especially the big cotton plantation farmers, and we will confiscate their lands. We will see there will never be a civil war again." A few days before he was shot, in one of the most charitable speeches that was ever made by a conqueror, he said: "I am at a loss for words to thank each and every one of you for the contribution you have made towards making it possible that this great nation should have existed." He said that the army, the navy, the diplomats and the civil servants had supported him but that he could not accept any suggestions that they had made. He said that he would bring together General Lee and General Grant. He said that General Lee was an honourable man and he would advise all his soldiers to return to their homes. He said he would have General Lee and all the public representatives of the South at one function. He said he would build a union between the North and the South, a union of goodwill that would make another war impossible.

It is not impossible here to build goodwill between the North and the South. There are people of goodwill in England and in the North of Ireland and there has been goodwill between the British and Irish Governments. During the events in the North there was constant communication between London and Dublin. The Taoiseach visited the British Prime Minister and this was the right course to adopt. He tried to do everything possible to achieve an understanding between the two countries.

We are working for a united Ireland and we will not surrender that right. I wish to compliment the spokesmen dealing with foreign affairs in the Fine Gael Party and in the Labour Party. We are all proud of the contributions they have made in the international field. We are proud of some of the speeches that have been made by Deputy Ryan when he was abroad— they were worthy of any true Irishman. The same can be said for the Labour Party who have been in agreement with us on these matters.

When I was speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Justice recently I said that some people were anxious to pull down this assembly. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has a tremendous task in trying to help our country in these serious times but he has the goodwill of every true Irishman. Everyone who wants to see Ireland prosper, who wants to avoid shootings, murders and the burning of property, wishes the Minister to carry on with his good work.

Irish soldiers abroad have distinguished themselves in the missions to which they have been assigned. I had the pleasure of visiting some of them in Israel and in Jordan and I was very proud of them. I wish to take this opportunity of complimenting our ambassadors and their staffs. They have upheld the dignity of our country and have given valuable help to our tourist, commercial and export trade. They have distinguished themselves in their jobs and have improved the image of Ireland abroad.

Our export and tourist trade has developed considerably. At one time out export trade consisted of the sale of a few cattle and some Guinness but that situation has changed drastically. I hope that nothing will happen to disrupt the progress that has been made. There are vicious people who want to upset our tourist trade and to take the bread and butter from the Irish people.

Our representatives at the Council of Europe and other international organisations are helping to build a fund of goodwill for this country. Although the rules of the United Nations meant that our Minister could not speak at a certain time, friendly nations in the organisation were anxious to allow him to make a statement. The Minister's friendly personality made a lot of friends for us during that period.

Deputy O'Leary said we should send more of our young people abroad. I should like to tell the Deputy that many of our young people go abroad. After the war I was a regional director of the Red Cross for County Dublin and a member of the executive. At that time we were regarded as "untouchables" by some countries because we remained neutral. However, we went to St. Lo in France and set up a Red Cross hospital there. It cost us a considerable amount but the goodwill it created tore down the paper wall that had been around our country.

The establishment of the Council of Europe enabled us to work with other nations. Many of our young people have volunteered to work for various services and they work for six months in the underdeveloped countries. All this helps to create a good image of Ireland.

I cannot understand those who say that this country should live in isolation and not have any communication with other nations. This is an attitude of some highly intelligent people, or at least they profess to be intelligent. They want us to build a wall around our country or they seek associate membership of the EEC in order to give themselves some way out. In ordinary life people know that at some time they will need their next-door neighbour, but there are recluses here who want us to keep away from everyone. However, a day will come when they must meet their neighbour. I cannot understand how anyone could say: "Stay on your own. You will have a lot of unemployment if you go into the Common Market. The standard of living will go down," and all the other misrepresentations we have heard. We are told that we are selling our nationality. Germany, France and Italy were very nationalistic. When they formed the Common Market they did not have to give up their language or their national identity.

The Minister has done a wonderful job in all the negotiations with the people in Brussels. I cannot understand how anybody could say that this country could stand alone, or that the Twenty-six Countries could stand alone and the Six Counties go in with Britain unless we achieve a united Ireland before that, which I hope we do. If we isolate ourselves our export market will disappear. Thousands of our people will be unemployed and our standard of living will go down. No individual family can stand alone. Even if they are multi-millionaires, at some time or other they have to depend on their neighbours. We are all pro-Irish on every side of the House. We do not want to say anything that will injure the dignity of our country. We are anxious that posterity should remember the things we have done to try to help them.

A British Prime Minister said behind the backs of the plenipotentiaries: "We have given them the agricultural south and they will not be able to carry on economically." We have come a long way and various Irish Governments have made great contributions since then. We had to depend on the money we got from the Irish people. We did not get money from any foreign country. A number of misguided people are now trying to keep us from entering the EEC. They are putting up arguments which are totally wrong. They are doing everything they can to stop us from entering. People from whom I expected more want us to stand alone. In America, President Wilson went from coast to coast appealing to the American people not to adopt an isolationist policy. He got a stroke and died. It took Pearl Harbour to bring it home to the American people that they could not stand alone.

There are a number of people who want us to stand alone. We are a very small country. The State of New York is larger than Ireland, England or Scotland. The politicians who advocated an isolationist policy in America were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbour. Deputy O'Leary made a great case for a unity of nations. He spoke about international goodwill. The trend of his statement was that he was pro-EEC, although his party have made another decision. He is entitled to his personal views.

I hope that the people of Ireland will consider seriously what they are doing at the referendum. I hope they will vote nationally and not narrowly. I hope they will not destroy what I believe to be an advantage. If it were not an advantage to France, Germany and Italy over the past ten years, they would have broken away from it. They have a great deal of tradition behind them. They are trying to improve conditions in the EEC. I hope commonsense will prevail amongst all our people. I am not going into the details of the benefits of membership. The standard of living in Italy improved very much in the EEC and the standard of living in other countries improved also.

If certain goods will be dearer here the agricultural community will have the opportunity of having a higher standard of living. We were always able to move with the times. We can increase the purchasing power of our people by giving them increased wages. These things will settle themselves. If we stay out, the standard of living of our people will go down in a very short time. I should like to thank the national press. They have been a great help during this period. They must also report the contributions of those who are against entry. That is democracy. I hope that until 10th May our national press will continue to do a good job.

The Minister said:

I should like to make it clear that on my visits to foreign countries I did not at any stage seek help against Britain. What I asked for was that those countries which had good relations with both Britain and ourselves should quietly make their concern known.

That was as far as any diplomat could go. He said:

I was satisfied from the contacts I made that many Governments who are well disposed to both our countries, were deeply concerned about the whole problem of the North. It was not expected that they should intervene publicly and directly, but the feelings of deep concern which I know that many of them had were not, I feel, without influence. All of us, I think, would wish our relations with our near neighbour to be warm and friendly, as is natural between two countries who have been closely linked in so many ways. The initiative taken by the British Government a few weeks ago is a step forward in seeking a lasting solution to the remaining problem in this historic relationship.

Down the years one would imagine that it was only the Orangemen in the North who stood by England. In the South there were few families that had not relations who took part on the side of Britain in both wars. It is to the English people I wish to address this. Very few people had not some friend or relation from their own town or village in both World War No. 1 and World War No. 2. According to some statistics—I am open to correction— while one out of every five went from the South to take part in the Second World War the figure was only one in every seven in the North of Ireland. Some British Conservatives, including Enoch Powell and a few others who are trying to sabotage this country, seem to think that the Orangemen are their friends. If we were speaking in England to an English audience this is an argument we should make.

There is freedom of movement and constant traffic between us——

Perhaps if we got around the table we might reach some agreement.

Mr. Tunney

Fáiltím roimh an ócáid seo chun cúpla focal a rá i nGaeilge. Feicim an focal "identity" anseo. Tá baint ag sin leis an dteagmháil atá againn le tíortha eile. Is maith liom é sin a fheiscint. Is mar sin ba cheart don scéal a bheith ach caithfidh mé a rá anois is arís go raibh saghas díomá orm nach raibh dóithin á dhéanamh againn chun an cuspóir sin a chur i bhfeidhm. Ba bhreá liom freisin dá ndéarfadh an tAire focal nó dhó mar gheall ar an dtábhacht a bhaineann leis an gcuspóir sin agus leis an dteanga. Caithfimid bheith carthanach linn féin. Scaití nuair a labhartar i nGaeilge nó nuair a dhéantar trácht uirthi bíonn mí-thuiscint ann b'fhéidir. Tuigim an fáth atá leis sin i roinnt mhaith áiteanna. Tá clamhsán beag amháin agam. Ó thárla go bhfuil seo leagtha síos mar chuspóir is ait liom nach bhfuil tagairt éigin don mhéid atá á dhéanamh againn nó don dhearcadh atá againn an Ghaeilge a úsáid mar chomhartha náisiúnta—an t-aon chomhartha amháin atá againn —an comhartha is tábhachtaí—gur náisiún muid.

I welcome particularly in the Minister's speech the reference to three issues which are described as being basic aspects of any country's relationship with the world. The first mentioned of those is the assertion of a country's identity. I am happy to see that fundamental written into the Minister's speech. I have said in Irish that I regret that while aspiring to this, and while accepting the basic aspect of it we have not, in the Department of Foreign Affairs a section which, in the fulfilment of this basic aspect, are paying particular attention to the part which should be played in the matter of the Irish language. If there is any one aspect of Irish life which will bring to us this international recognition of our having our own identity, it must be in having a language of our own. I am not saying that it is the only factor but it is possibly one of the most forcible factors which we have. If we are sincere in this, we must be concerned—and, perhaps, more concerned than we have been to date— regarding the use of the Irish language as it should be used in displaying to other countries that we have our own identity. Naturally, this would not be confined to the Irish language. In matters of culture, education and philosophy we should be making our contribution. I understand how we have been inhibited to date in this regard. I was reared here in circumstances in which I believed in my innocence that there was a knowledge and a recognition throughout the world of the importance of the Irish people and of the important role that Ireland as a country has played. On the occasion of my visits to Europe to meet people who had, perhaps, even a university education, I was disappointed to be looked upon an an Englishman. This happened in Paris, Rome and Brussels. I can understand this happening because for many years we lived in the shadow of our neighbours with our lives in much the same pattern as theirs, having done nothing that would distinguish us from them, and not having used our language which would have helped towards this identification and segregation to which we all aspire.

We are now getting the opportunity of indicating at least in Europe that we are a nation. I should be very sincere here in saying that I do not accept, nor does any Irishman accept, that we are yet a full nation. On the other hand, I accept that we are a sovereign State and that we enjoy that status. We all hope that soon we will enjoy a nationhood which will embrace the Thirty-two counties of Ireland. I welcome entry to the EEC for that reason more than any other.

Reference was made to the case which is being made by people who call themselves the anti-marketeers. There are people moving around the city of Dublin defacing walls with the slogan "EEC means unemployment". I have not seen any of these people in operation, but I am quite sure that the persons who so deface our walls with this slogan are people who never were gainfully employed in their lives and who, if an opportunity for gainful employment were presented to them, would not accept it.

I have here a handout from these people. It comes from a group calling themselves the Robert Emmet Cumann and contains a subhead "Agriculture". It says that inside the Common Market no farm or holding earning less than £4,000 per annum is allowed to exist. We are expected to accept that as a statement of fact coming from a group under the banner of Sinn Féin and taking unto themselves the name of Robert Emmet. This does an injustice to the people who are responsible for Sinn Féin and from whom Sinn Féin came. It does an injustice to Robert Emmet who asked that his epitaph should not be written until Ireland took her place among the nations of the earth: If these people were making the point that Ireland is not yet a full nation in so far as her nationhood does not embrace the Thirty-two counties, and that we should not take our place in the EEC because of that, then I must admit that I should be sympathetically disposed towards them. However, in this particular handout there is no reference at all to anything connected with nationhood. All references are to things material. They claim to make the case against our entry to the EEC on questions dealing with industry, agriculture and what they call "alternatives". That is an indication of the opposition which exists to the EEC. I do not wish to generate any complacency in the matter of the outcome of the referendum but I venture to say that if this is an indication of the opposition we have not much to worry about.

At a time when we are discussing the Department of Foreign Affairs and its activities over the past two years, I am saddened that we should be discussing what is called the Northern Ireland problem. The assumption that Northern Ireland is foreign, however factual, is one which I regret very much. I accept that there are difficulties and that difficulties will continue. I agree with every other Member of this House that there is only one good and lasting way in which these difficulties can be solved, and that is by peaceful means. However, a little more is required than a statement of peaceful intentions. Patriotism requires sacrifice. In this regard I would be critical of fellow Irishmen and, indeed, of myself in so far as we would be exceedingly happy if our ideals could be realised through the efforts and sacrifices of other Irishmen or Irish women.

I do not think the expression of the hope of solving the problem by peaceful means is sufficient. A certain element of force is necessary, and by that I do not mean the gun. I mean the force of example, the example that comes from self-sacrifice or self-denial. I said something here on a former occasion with certain reservations and certain doubts, but the longer I think of it the more I am attracted to restating it. I said we must be prepared to make sacrifices for what we believe is necessary and not expect our fellow countrymen, in our anxiety to have them with us, to make these sacrifices to fullfil our aspirations. The sacrifice I have in mind is not the spilling of blood or the throwing of bombs but one that requires the payment of money.

It has been said that the time has come for us to indicate an initiative. As part of our initiative and an indication of our preparedness to help, I would like to see the payment in respect of the next financial year of £X million towards the phasing out of the subvention which the Six Counties enjoys at the moment. I know that suggestion will not be acceptable by everyone but, on the other hand, it is one which I personally would be prepared to put to the people in my constituency and on which I would be prepared to stand or fall in a future election. Sacrifices must be made if we are to achieve the real unification we all desire, the unification of hearts and minds. I doubt very much if it can be achieved by juggling around or changing the phraseology of our Constitution. I am not dismissing the necessity for changes in our Constitution, but constitutional changes, however attractive they may be, will not satisfy the need unless simultaneously we can indicate in a more telling fashion the sincerity of our feelings and our desire to live in harmony with our fellow Irishmen in the North.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 18 Apr 1972

Private Members' Business. - Supply for Department of Foreign Affairs: Motion (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 1972